curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: CURATOR-217?
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2015 22:36:41 GMT
if you're going to tray that, here's what you want to do (assuming command
line)

git checkout CURATOR-167 # start with the branch that you are changing
git rebase -i master # rebase the current branch on top of the given branch

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Scott,
> I've been using a similar approach to Jordan given that's what I'm used to,
> but I'm happy to try your approach. I'm going to try and fix up CURATOR-167
> as it will no longer cleanly merge (it's been sitting there a while). So, I
> should rebase master into the CURATOR-167 branch?
> cheers
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:55 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > LOL!  So sorry to hear that.  Yeah, it's definitely possible to mess
> > things up badly.  If I'm doing something particularly risky, I'll just
> "git
> > branch original" before I start, so as to leave a branch pointer at my
> > start point as a safe recovery if it goes south.  I also use gitk to
> > visualize sometimes.
> >
> > Another major selling point for rebase (-i) is that it's *really* hard to
> > merge the wrong branch.  If the list of commits that comes up doesn't
> look
> > basically correct, you probably did something wrong-- trying to rebase
> onto
> > the wrong branch will give you tons of commits, most of which aren't
> yours.
> >
> > I think what you've been doing is fine, it's definitely the right
> approach
> > if you're doing a merge strategy!  I've just ended up gravitating to a
> > rebase strategy over the years for the reasons I've mentioned.
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I’ll admit that rebase terrifies me. I’ve f’d up several projects with
> it
> >> so I can’t even type the letters without breaking into a sweat. "git
> rebase
> >> -i” is a lot safer, though. Here’s what I’ve been doing - let me know
if
> >> it’s OK. For branches that are off of CURATOR-3.0, I never merge
> master. I
> >> only merge CURATOR-3.0: “git merge CURATOR-3.0”. In fact, should we
> have a
> >> branch naming scheme to enforce this?
> >>
> >> -Jordan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On August 24, 2015 at 11:30:50 AM, Scott Blum (dragonsinth@apache.org)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Correct. When I say "main" branch vs. "feature" branch I just mean the
> >> stable branch everyone is working against (3.0 or master) vs. a feature
> >> branch where you're actively working.
> >>
> >> You'll get to a point in development where you'll think "Hey, there are
> >> changes on the main branch I'm working against that I really need to
> pull
> >> into my feature branch." At that point (particularly if you have an svn
> >> background) you'll be tempted to merge the main branch into your feature
> >> branch. I would suggest not doing that, as it makes the history very
> muddy
> >> to follow. Instead, my workflow is usually more like this:
> >>
> >> Suppose I'm working on CURATOR-218. It was originally branched off 3.0,
> >> and I want to pull in new changes.
> >>
> >> git remote update
> >> git rebase -i origin/CURATOR-3.0
> >>
> >> This pulls up an editor that gives me the list of commits to rebase. I
> >> would typically exit out of the editor to at this point to accept the
> >> commit list, but if I'm so inclined, I'll do things like reorder the
> list,
> >> or squash commits like like "wip" or "minor reformat" into a more
> curated
> >> set of logical commits.
> >>
> >> Once you exit the editor, git goes through and applies each commit, one
> at
> >> a time, to the head of the target branch. It's like picking up your
> commit
> >> chain and dumping it at the end of the target branch, as if all your
> work
> >> had been done against what's now the head of that branch. You'll may
> have
> >> to fix conflicts along the way, but usually not much more than if you
> did
> >> it as a merge.
> >>
> >> I'd encourage us to try this out a couple times and get a feel for the
> >> rebase flow. It's a little more to get your head around at first, but
> the
> >> upside is you end up with really easy to follow commit histories, which
> >> makes it way easier to untangle problems later if they crop up.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Can you explain this in detail? For me, I have some features that are
> >> > 3.0.0 based so I’m treating CURATOR-3.0 as a kind of master. The true
> >> > “master” is Curator 2.x only, right?
> >> >
> >> > -Jordan
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On August 24, 2015 at 11:10:08 AM, Scott Blum (dragonsinth@apache.org
> )
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > BTW: I noticed a couple of new commits
> >> > (ba4b5d8cb1f9733d3901b0b619528454d3dbf8c8
> >> > & 2343daf29388566b0efa0b0a2ad21574fb534a27) where 3.0 is getting
> merged
> >> > into feature branches. Almost every project I've been on we don't tend
> >> to
> >> > do that as it leads to confusing history (this isn't just aesthetic,
> it
> >> > can
> >> > get harder for tooling to figure out what happened). If I want to pull
> >> > changes from the main branch into my feature branch, I would typically
> >> > *rebase* my feature branch against the main branch.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@apache.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Yeah, 217 & 161 were the first two big things in 3.0.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> > > jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> OK - Also, is CURATOR-161 complete? The issue is still open in
> Jira.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On August 24, 2015 at 12:47:21 AM, Cameron McKenzie (
> >> > >> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com) wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Yes, I merged it in last week some time.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
> >> > >> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Scott, did CURATOR-217 get merged into the new CURATOR-3.0?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > -Jordan
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message